If you are new to the forums, you must register a free account before you can post. The forums have a separate registration from the rest of www.chronofhorse.com, so your log in information for one will not automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

In a serious discussion of preventing these mass attacks ...
Deadly threat will not deter them since many of the attackers suicide or are killed.

So what do the attackers want ? They want the publicity or attention. Otherwise they would die nameless and ignored.

Laws preventing the naming or showing of the attacker AND the attack would remove the cause.

But... like gun control .. restrictions on the press run into constitutional problems. A potential solution is people doing the reverse of what the attackers desire. Forget the attacker, remember the victims.

QUOTE: "And that, my friend, is your problem. This world has always been a war zone."

However you want to say the world is a war zone, it's not something I am comfortable exposing my students to when they are in a building to learn and be educated. There has got to be another solution than to say "You are safe nowhere. We all need weapons. Including your teachers. Now, let me adjust my glock before we start our partner reading."

As a teacher, I would not be willing to carry a gun, nor would I want any of my co-workers to carry a gun. There has got to be a better solution. Think seriously -- how many situations have you been in where you've wondered how someone was allowed to have a driver's license? Or your coworker has proved their idiocy for the 20th time... that day? You think arming all of these people, allowing them and encouraging them to walk around with a loaded gun is the best bet?

At the end of the day, we aren't going to agree, but I would really like everyone to think carefully before suggesting that arming everyone in a school is a safe idea, or would benefit our students in the long run.

Additionally, after some of the comments I've read in this thread and beyond today, I'd like to make the following announcement.

The funeral for My Hope for the Future will be held today, 12/15/12, at 7:00. Also involved in the incident was My Belief in Humanity and Optimism. All are survived by A Prayer for Logical Thinking. Red thumbs can be given in lieu of flowers.

You know, we hear all the time about that.
Who would want to get in such a coffin as a plane is and think it is a safe way to get from here to there in those metal contraptions?

We really ought to demand all are sensible and JUST SAY NO to planes, quit flying, so there won't be any more such horrible deaths.

We can get around just fine on the ground and even in ships, can't we?
Who needs planes anyway?
Planes kill people!

The statistics say for the miles flown, planes are one of the safest ways to get where you are going, but statistics lie, as we know, just look at the horror plane accidents are!

From the millions of guns out there in responsible hands, those few that are used to kill innocent people show us how deadly and horrible guns are.
Clearly we need to ban guns.
Obviously we are not to be trusted with guns, just as we should not trust planes to fly safely.
Make us safe, ban all that can be and at times is unsafe.

Apparently not, since the "success" of the most common suicide technique is low.

Just be glad that youhave not been through suicides because I can tell you families are not comforted one bit that their loved one used hanging or drove their car into a tree (single car crash, not always attributed to suicide) and did not shoot themselves. A sixteen year old who hung himself because he did not want his mental illness to be a burden on his family, a man who spoke of what a relief it would be to just end things, but was always talked out of it, only to complete but only after killing his girlfriend and her dog (he hung himself). A guy who was just miserable, had his house checked for firearms by his PO, then while his wife was busy telling the PO that she did not know where he was, he OD'd on heroin in the back room. some who "just want to send a message" may not, the message "I'm in pain here, could use a little help!" gets through and they get relief. Those folks probably would not use a firearm. But for those who are truly committed and see no hope in the future, they'll get it done. And its awful. You can't lock them up forever

Kennesaw, GA has a mandatory gun law. All heads of household in that city are required to have a gun and ammunition. From the Kennesaw, GA city website:

The Gun Law

Kennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition." After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County.

In Wyoming you can get a concealed weapon permit for like $30. Pretty much everybody carries a weapon for hunting or otherwise. Guess what their crime rate is.

According to neighborhood scout, the crime rate in Wyoming is not that much different than in Connecticut. The crime rate may be better, but you also have a population of about 500,000 in about 97,814 sq miles. In Connecticut, you have a population of 3,000,000 in about 5544 square miles.

So, in Wyoming, you have a 1 in 510 chance of being a victim of a violent crime in a state where you have about 5.851 people for every sq mile. In Connecticut, your chances of being the victim of a violent crime are 1 in 355 and you have 739.1 people per square mile.

It isn't about weapons, it is about population density - when do people get most annoyed with each other? On a stormy day when everyone is stuck in the house or on a nice day when people are making plans to go out, kids are playing outside, etc. Stick that many people together, tempers get heated and getting into an area where a lot of people will be at once is a lot easier.

Kennesaw, GA has a mandatory gun law. All heads of household in that city are required to have a gun and ammunition. From the Kennesaw, GA city website:

The Gun Law

Kennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition." After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County.

THIS! You can't logically bitch about a healthcare mandate then say we should all be required to own a gun. You can't logically argue that you want a gun to defend yourself from the crazies, then say you want to arm everyone...which, newsflash, includes the crazies! And you can't argue against stricter gun laws and then say that we should arm everyone BUT screen out the crazies. Surely all of this cognitive dissonance must be giving people headaches?

If someone wants to kill people they are going to find a way to do it regardless. And its generally NOT the people who have their guns legally that are the problem.

Very true. Haven't gotten to the bottom of the thread, but a common theme in all of these shootings is mental illness. Until we have better mental health services, mentally unstable people may be more likely to commit these sorts of crimes. This act was reprehensible and unforgivable, but I wonder if this person and the others who committed similarly heinous crimes had gotten better mental health care, they may have been less likely to have murdered others. Of course the movie theater shooter was under mental health care at his university, so perhaps not always.

How about quicker trials and sentencing for the ones who dont shoot themselves?

The asshat who opened fire in the movie theater...I DONT CARE if he is mentally insane...how in the world is THAT a free pass?!?! Our justice system needs some modifiing to handle these types of cases...that guy that shot a bailf here in ATL, escaped jail, and ended up shooting and killing a cop...STILL hasnt been tried and this was at least 5 years ago!!

It's not a free pass. Thirty years ago the seriously mentally ill were institutionalized. Institutions at the time weren't always the best places, and we have learned a lot about compassionate care in that time, but at least folks who were likely to do such things were under supervision. Deinstitutionalization was just as much about saving money as it was about "compassion." You turn those folks over to communities and not provide financial support, they wind up homeless, families are overburdened and unable to provide adequate supervision, etc. It's still not a free pass tho. My beef is with the system. Yet we don't want to pay taxes to pay for services. So, this is what happens sometimes. I'm not saying it's a straight line from here to there, but it does contribute.

I'm not saying that disarmerment of a populace means that the government is planning genocide of a section of the people.
However when they 'do' plan something horrible against the people the first thing they do is take away the guns.

If someone wants to take something away from you you need to look beyond the cover story and ask ... Why do they want you unable to fight back?

It is in Texas, in a way. It's not legal to execute mentally ill felons, no matter what they've done. I think it stinks.

Thirty years ago the seriously mentally ill were institutionalized. Institutions at the time weren't always the best places, and we have learned a lot about compassionate care in that time, but at least folks who were likely to do such things were under supervision. Deinstitutionalization was just as much about saving money as it was about "compassion." You turn those folks over to communities and not provide financial support, they wind up homeless, families are overburdened and unable to provide adequate supervision, etc. It's still not a free pass tho. My beef is with the system.

The system is indeed the problem; it needs to be overhauled to clear out those who are abusing it, to get the help to the people who really need it.

Yet we don't want to pay taxes to pay for services. So, this is what happens sometimes. I'm not saying it's a straight line from here to there, but it does contribute.

Ummm, we damned well do pay taxes for these services - how else do you think the government gets money for them? The problem is that there are so many "disabled" people out there drawing money from those who are truly physically and mentally disabled that there's little left for those who really need it. If you don't believe me, just watch Judge Judy or any of the other court TV shows, and count how many parties are "disabled".

QUOTE: "And that, my friend, is your problem. This world has always been a war zone."

However you want to say the world is a war zone, it's not something I am comfortable exposing my students to when they are in a building to learn and be educated. There has got to be another solution than to say "You are safe nowhere. We all need weapons. Including your teachers. Now, let me adjust my glock before we start our partner reading."

As a teacher, I would not be willing to carry a gun, nor would I want any of my co-workers to carry a gun. There has got to be a better solution. Think seriously -- how many situations have you been in where you've wondered how someone was allowed to have a driver's license? Or your coworker has proved their idiocy for the 20th time... that day? You think arming all of these people, allowing them and encouraging them to walk around with a loaded gun is the best bet?

At the end of the day, we aren't going to agree, but I would really like everyone to think carefully before suggesting that arming everyone in a school is a safe idea, or would benefit our students in the long run.

Additionally, after some of the comments I've read in this thread and beyond today, I'd like to make the following announcement.

The funeral for My Hope for the Future will be held today, 12/15/12, at 7:00. Also involved in the incident was My Belief in Humanity and Optimism. All are survived by A Prayer for Logical Thinking. Red thumbs can be given in lieu of flowers.

I was unable to attend the funeral yesterday because even with these sad events that have been in the spotlight lately, I still have Hope For The Future, as well as a Belief In Humanity and an Optimistic outlook. I still believe we live in a great country full of good people that would rather help each other than hurt each other. I hope that the people who have been affected by the recent rash of shootings find the support they need to get through these trying times.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that everyone on the trigger side of the gun gets to decide what counts as justifiable shooting?

Umm, what makes you think that those currently "on the trigger side of the gun" aren't making those decisions? And that in a large percentage of cases of gun violence, the aggressor is on the trigger side? Do you think that burglar who just kicked in your front door, or is holding a gun to your head in a mall parking lot getting ready to carjack you, isn't making that decision for you?

It would all be well and good if we presumed everyone to be rational or to think as we do. But a major theme of the pro-gun types is that they wish to reserve the right to keep their weapons precisely because other people are stupid, selfish, crazy or whathaveyou.

Yes. We "pro-gun types" absolutely want to keep our weapons, because of those on the "trigger side" who wish us ill. And if you were smart, you would, too.

If you want to reserve the right to shoot according to your judgment, then you logically have to grant that to every other armed person as well. It's a bad deal, IMO.

Sweetie, in case no one's explained it to you, everyone with a gun already has that right - with or without your permission - including the bad guys. If you choose not to own a gun and be prepared to protect and defend yourself, that's your business. But don't try to take my gun away and compromise my safety because of your beliefs.

. Until we have better mental health services, mentally unstable people may be more likely to commit these sorts of crimes. .

Well, not really. It depends on how we define "mental illness "or "mentally unstable". Its been awhile but I remember sychiatric patients with no co occuring addiction not eing more likely to commit crimes than any one else (haven't looked at data but probably more likely to be victimized). That stigma (the mentally ill!!) raises images of people out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. There are definitely risk factors for danger (things we look at to try to assess potential for violence) but I hate to see "the mentally ill" as sort of targeted as crime perpetrators. I support funding, addressing systemic issues, ANYthing to offer for accessibility (very hard here in Montana, even for folks who are actively hallucinating-our local mental health center does not consider that extreme enough to even get an interview!!!!!) but just adding a hope that people don't further stigmatize those who are really suffering and are NOT in any way violent. And yes, even though we are "treating" someone, a) they do NOT always tell us everything, b) assessing risk is difficult and not something I think our field does particularly well, and c) treatment-medication stabilization, addressing emotional symptoms, working with families, can take time.